GoBlueNorthside

History

Recent Comments

> Rogers Redding, national coordinator for NCAA football officiating, says referees are human but unfailingly scrupulous. “I can unequivocally say that I have never seen any sign of bias on the part of officials at any level,” says Redding, who officiated NCAA football for 18 years.

He has "never seen any sign of bias" in 18 years. That is impossible.

If you can't even acknowledge a problem sometimes occurs, how would it ever get fixed?

Seems to be a lot of judgement being passed on Wormley on the twitter thread. The video doesn't show what happened to cause the collision, maybe that person came flying out of no-where. Rushing the field is often chaotic

I've been looking into AWS lately to figure out if that'd work for hosting a server I need - is there a reason (that you can share) that you didn't go that route? I thought AWS was designed to handle load spikes, but on the other hand I thought they only billed you for CPU time instead of number of "active instances"

Exactly, ND is basically part of the ACC and they'd already be sending Clemson as conference champion. They shouldn't be sending both Clemson and ND, especialy since ND lost to Clemson - that's just rewarding ND's shenanigans.

Clearly more ACC favoritism for Duke. The refs made a dozen erroneous calls against Miami, none of which has been mentioned by the ACC. They had a historic 27 penalties against Miami. The ACC has been a Duke/UNC conference for a while now - now they want it to be that way in football as well as basketball

I actually saw the UT Austin version of this at the UT Austin version of M-Den recently and we were disappointed that there was no Michigan equivalent. It must have just come out in the last couple days

Not to be a pain in the ass... I appreciate the article and its analysis and whatnot

From my understanding, in this analysis you're looking at the effect of the expected value of a particular drive. So before the event you have some vector, e.g., (1% safety, 10% punt, 5% downs, 50% touchdown, 34% field goal) and then after the event you have some other vector (0% safety, 5% punt, 2% downs, 80% touchdown, 13% field goal). For easier digestion, this gets multiplied by the change in score from each event (-2, 0, 0, 7, 3) and summed so that we are left with a single number. In this sense, this analysis is done on a drive-by-drive basis.

So while I agree that on a philsophical level, as soon as one event in the entire game changes, everything else in the game will also be affected through the butterfly effect, my point is that the expected value of a given drive cannot exceed 7 points. If the expected value of an entire drive cannot exceed 7 points, then the cumulative *changes* in expected value for a given drive also cannot exceed 7 points.

I made some attempt to address that by multiplying the probability of later events by the inverse-probability of earlier events, but I agree that's not perfect.

Sorry. All I meant was that if two of the penalties analyzed in this article are from the same drive, a change of one penalty would affect the other, i.e., they are not independent.

So let's say you have penalty A and penalty B where penalty A is a missed hold call on 3nd down and penalty B is a phantom pass interference call on the next set of downs. In this article the change in expected points is calculated as if these are independent, so the change in value is (VA*PA + VB*PB) where VA = Value(A) and PA=Probability(A).

What I'm saying is if these two penaltys are from the same drive, then Penalty B would only have an effect if Penalty A was not called correctly. So the formula should be (VA*PA+VB*PB*(1-VA)). So each later contribution is dampened by the earlier penalties.